Child trafficking, prostitution cases deeply disturbing, says SC
The Supreme Court on Friday held that cases of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation involving children are “deeply disturbing”
The Supreme Court on Friday held that cases of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation involving children are “deeply disturbing” and strikes at the root of the state’s constitutional guarantee to safeguard every child against exploitation as it directed courts below to discard technicalities and appreciate a child victim’s statement with more “sensitivity” and “realism”.
The strong observations came while the court was confronted with the shocking facts of how a minor girl aged 16 was trafficked in Karnataka, sold to a couple who engaged her in prostitution and facilitated persons to have sexual intercourse with her till a police team raided the place and rescued her in 2010. Both the trial court and Karnataka high court upheld the conviction of the couple under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. They approached the top court citing material discrepancies in the victim’s statement, that was relied solely by the courts below to convict them.
A bench of justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi said, “The instant case lays bare the deeply disturbing reality of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India, an offence that strikes at the very foundations of dignity, bodily integrity and the state’s constitutional promise of protection to every child against exploitation leading to moral and material abandonment.”
The court refused to acknowledge this case as an “isolated aberration” but held that such crimes form part of a wider and entrenched pattern of “organised exploitation” that continues to flourish despite legislative safeguards under IPC and ITP Act.
Upholding the conviction imposed by the high court on February 5, 2025, the bench went on to lay down guidelines to be followed by courts below when they are confronted to decide such cases where the evidence of a minor victim of trafficking becomes crucial.
The court said that the judge ought to bear in mind the inherent socio-economic and, at times, cultural vulnerability of the minor victim as in the present case where the victim was poor and had stepped out of her home for some employment to fetch some earning for her livelihood. Spotting her at a bus stand, four individuals took her to the couple in Dasarahalli where she was pushed into prostitution.
“Judicial appreciation of victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism,” the court said, while asking courts below to be mindful about the “complex and layered structure of organised crime networks” involved in recruiting, transporting, harbouring and exploiting minor victims. Due to the presence of such a network, victims are unable to narrate with “precision and clarity” as tentacles of an organised crime activity to which she falls prey are quite diverse.
“Given this situation, failure to promptly protest against ostensibly innocuous yet ominous agenda of the trafficker ought not to be treated as a ground to discard a victim’s version as improbable or against ordinary human conduct,” said justice Bagchi, writing the judgment for the bench.
The court highlighted yet another aspect that confronts such victims who are required to recount and narrate the “horrible spectre of sexual exploitation” before the police and courts which can be an “unpalatable experience” that leads to secondary victimisation. “This is more acute when the victim is a minor and is faced with threats of criminal intimidation, fear of retaliation, social stigma and paucity of social and economic rehabilitation,” said the bench, highlighting it as a factor which courts below should be mindful about.
Seen in this backdrop, on a nuanced appreciation, the court said, “if the version of the victim appears to be credible and convincing, a conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony,” recalling earlier judgments of the court which state that a victim of sex trafficking, particularly a minor, is not an accomplice and her deposition is to be given due regard and credence as that of an injured witness.
